Showing posts with label Zenit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zenit. Show all posts

Friday, December 1, 2017

More video messages!

...to the participants in the International Symposium 
Laudato si’- The care of the ‘common home’


For video transcript in Italian & Spanish (click here)

I greet all of you who are participating in this Symposium organized by the Catholic University of Costa Rica with the collaboration of the Ratzinger Foundation. I thank the President of the Republic for the support given to this initiative, which promotes a cause close to my heart.
With the Encyclical Laudato si’, I drew the attention of humanity and the Church to the most urgent questions relating to the care of our common home and the present and future of the peoples who inhabit it. The problems of the destruction of the natural environment are increasingly grave and the consequences on the lives of people are dramatic.
To face these, we need to have a broader vision of the causes, the nature of the crisis and its various aspects. No, a negationist attitude in the face of this world problem is not legitimate. It is essential for there to be collaboration among scientists, sociologists, economists and politicians, as well as educators and formers of consciences. Without a true conversion of our attitudes and our everyday behavior, technical solutions will not save our home.
As Pope Benedict XVI said, a “human ecology” is needed, placing at the center the full development of the person and appealing to his or her responsibility for the common good, for the respect and good administration of the creatures God has entrusted to us.
I hope with all my heart that this Symposium will provide a strong impetus for collaboration between the Catholic Universities – in particular in Latin America and in the Caribbean – for the study of these problems, the development of the situation and possible solutions; and also to suggest concrete proposals, to inspire greater responsibility for the care of our common home, not only by individuals by also in political, social and ecclesial communities, and finally, in families.
There is a need for solidarity and for efforts by all. The Encyclical Laudato si’ is an appeal to each and every one of us. There is a need for collaboration by everyone, in order to receive the message of Laudato si’ and translate it into real life, for the good and the future of the human family.
source: ZENIT, Pope Affirms Need to Care for Our Common Home

...to the participants in the Conference on 
lay Catholics engaged in politics



For video transcript in Italian & Spanish (click here)

Good morning! First of all, I want to greet and thank the political leaders that accepted the invitation to take part in an event that I myself encouraged from its genesis: “The Meeting of Catholic Laymen that Assume Political Responsibilities at the Service of the Peoples of Latin America.” I also greet the Lord Cardinals and Bishops that are accompanying you, with whom you will surely have a very profitable dialogue for all.
Since Pope Pius XII and up to now, successive Pontiffs have always referred to politics as a “high form of charity.” It could also be translated as an inestimable service of dedication for the achievement of the common good of society. Politics is, first of all, a service. It is not the slave of individual ambitions, of the arrogance of factions or <interest groups>. As service, it is not either a master that pretends to rule all the dimensions of people’s lives, including falling into forms of autocracy and totalitarianism. And when I speak of autocracy and totalitarianism I’m not talking about the last century, I’m speaking of today, in today’s world, and perhaps, also, of some country of Latin America. It could be affirmed that Jesus’ service – who came to serve and not to be served — and the service that the Lord exacts from His Apostles and disciples is analogically the type of service that is asked of politicians. It’s a service of sacrifice and dedication, to such a point that at times politicians can be considered as “martyrs” of causes for the common good of their nations.
The fundamental reference of this service, which requires constancy, commitment and intelligence, is the common good, without which the rights and the most noble aspirations of people, of families and of intermediary groups, in general, would not be able to be fully fulfilled, because the ordered and civil space in which to live and operate would be lacking. It is about conceiving the common good as an atmosphere for the growth of the person, of the family, of the intermediary groups — the common good. Vatican Council II defined the common good according to the patrimony of the Social Doctrine of the Church, as “the whole of those conditions of social life with which men, families, and associations can attain their perfection with great fullness and facility” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 74). Clearly, one must not oppose service and power — no one wants an impotent power! However, power must be ordered to service so that it does not degenerate. That is, any power that is not ordered to service degenerates. I’m referring, of course, to “good politics,” in its noblest sense, and not to the degeneration of what we call “politicking.” “The best way to attain a genuinely human politics – once again the Council teaches — is to foment an interior sense of justice, of benevolence, and of service to the common good and to strengthen fundamental convictions regarding the true nature of the political community and, finally, the correct exercise and limits of public powers” (Ibid., n. 73). You must all have the certainty that the Catholic Church “praises and esteems the work of those who, at the service of man, dedicate themselves to the res publicaand accept the burdens of this office” (Ibid., n. 75).
At the same time, I’m also certain that we all feel the need to rehabilitate the dignity of politics. Referring to Latin America, how can one not observe the popular discredit that all political entities are suffering; the crisis of the political parties; the absence of lofty political debates geared to national and Latin American projects and strategies, which go beyond sabotaged policies! Moreover, frequently open and respectful dialogue, which seeks possible convergence, is often substituted by those stormy mutual accusations and demagogic relapses.  Lacking also is formation and replacement by new political generations. That’s why people look from afar and criticize politicians and see them as a corporation of professionals that have their own interests, or denounce them angrily, sometimes without the necessary distinctions, as tainted with corruption. This has nothing to do with the necessary and positive participation of the peoples, passionate about their life and destiny, which the political scene of nations should encourage. What is clear is that they need political leaders that live passionately their service to peoples, that vibrate with the profound fibers of their ethos and culture, solidary with their sufferings and hopes; politicians that put the common good before their private interests, that don’t let themselves be intimidated by the great financial and media powers, that are competent and patient in face of complex problems, that are open to listening and to learning in a democratic dialogue, that combine the quest for justice with mercy and reconciliation. Let us not be content with the meagreness of politics: we need political leaders capable of mobilizing vast popular sectors in pursuit of great national and Latin American objectives. I know personally Latin American political leaders with a different political orientation, who come close to this ideal figure.
How much we need today “good and noble politics” and its protagonists in Latin America! Do we not have to address problems and challenges of great magnitude? First of all, we need protection of the gift of life in all its stages and manifestations. Latin America also needs industrial, technological, self-sustaining and sustainable growth together with policies that address the drama of poverty and that are geared to equity and inclusion, because there is no true development, which leaves multitudes helpless and continues to fuel scandalous social inequality. An integral education cannot be neglected, which begins in the family and is developed in schooling for all and of quality. The family and social fabric must be strengthened. A culture of encounter – and not of permanent antagonisms – must strengthen the fundamental bonds of humanity and sociability and lay strong foundations for social friendship, which leaves behind the pincers of individualism and massification, polarization and manipulation. We must point ourselves to mature, participatory democracies without blemishes of corruption, or of ideological colonizations, or autocratic pretensions and cheap demagogies. Let us look after our common home and its most vulnerable inhabitants, avoiding all sorts of suicidal indifference and unbridled exploitations. Let us raise very high again and very concretely the need for the economic, social, cultural and political integration of our brother nations, to build our Continent, which will be even greater when it incorporates “all races,” completing their miscegenation, and be a paradigm of respect for human rights, of peace and of justice. We cannot resign ourselves to the deteriorated situation in which we frequently find ourselves today.
I would like to take one more step in this reflection. In his address in Aparecida for the opening of the 5th General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate, Pope Benedict XVI pointed out “the notable absence in the political realm […] of voices and initiatives of Catholic leaders of strong personality and abnegated vocation, which are coherent with their ethical and religious convictions.” And the Bishops of the whole Continent wished to incorporate this observation in the conclusions of Aparecida., speaking of “disciples and missionaries in public life” (n. 502). In truth, in a Continent with a great number of baptized in the Catholic Church, of Catholic cultural substratum, in which the Catholic tradition is still very actual in the peoples and in which great manifestations of popular piety abound, how is it possible that Catholics appear somewhat irrelevant in the political scene, even assimilated to a worldly logic? It’s true that there are testimonies of exemplary Catholics in the public scene, but one notes the absence of strong currents that open the way to the Gospel in the public life of the nations. And this doesn’t mean at all to engage in proselytism through politics. There are many who profess to be Catholics — and we are not allowed to judge their consciences but yes their acts –, which often manifest little coherence with the ethical and religious convictions proper of Catholic teaching. We don’t know what’s going on in their conscience, we cannot judge it, but we see their acts.  There are others who are so absorbed in living their political commitments that their faith is relegated to a second plane, impoverishing themselves, without the capacity to be a guiding principle and to leave their footprint in all the dimensions of a person’s life, including his political practice. And there is no lack of those who feel they are not recognized, encouraged, accompanied and sustained in the custody and growth of their faith, on the part of Pastors and Christian communities. In the end, the Christian contribution to the political event appears only through the statements of the Episcopates, without perceiving the peculiar mission of the Catholic laity to order, manage and transform the society, according to the evangelical criteria and the patrimony of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Hence, I wanted to choose, as the theme of the previous Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, the theme: “The Indispensable Commitment of the Catholic Laity in the Public Scene of the Latin American Countries” (March 1-4, 2017).  And on March 13, I sent a letter to the President of that Commission, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in which I warned once again about the risk of clericalism and posed the question: “What does it mean for us Pastors that the laity work in public life?” ‘It means to look for the way to be able to encourage, accompany and stimulate the attempts, efforts that are already made today to maintain hope and faith alive in a world of contradictions, especially for the poorest. It means for us, Pastors, to commit ourselves in the midst of our people and, with our people, to sustain the faith and their hope, opening doors, working with them, dreaming with them, reflecting and especially praying with them. We need to recognize the city — and therefore all areas where the life of our people unfolds — from a contemplative look, a look of faith that discovers the God that dwells in their homes, in their streets, in their Squares.”
And, on the contrary, “we have often fallen into the temptation of thinking that the so-called “committed layman” is one who works in the endeavours of the Church and/or in the things of the parish or of the diocese and we have reflected little on the way to accompany a baptized person in his public and daily life, and how he commits himself as a Christian in public life. Without realizing it, we have generated a lay elite, believing that, only those that work in the things “of priests” are “committed laymen, and we have forgotten, neglected the believer that often burns his hope in the daily struggle to live his faith. These are the situations that clericalism can’t see, as it is very concerned with controlling areas more than with generating processes. Therefore, we must recognize that the layman, because of his own reality; because of his own identity; because he is immersed in the heart of social, public and political life; because he is in the midst of new cultural ways that are continually gestated needs new forms of organization and celebration of the faith.”
It’s necessary that Catholic laymen be not indifferent to the res publica, or withdraw inside the churches, or expect ecclesiastical directives and orders to fight for justice, for more human ways of life for all. “It’s never the Pastor who tells the layman what he must do or say; laymen know it better than we do . . . It’s not the Pastor who must determine what the faithful must say in the different ambits. As Pastors, united to our people, it does us good to ask ourselves how we are stimulating and promoting charity and fraternity, the desire for the good, and for truth an justice. What are we doing so that corruption won’t nest in our hearts,” including in our hearts as Pastors.  And, at the same time, it does us good to listen very carefully to the experience, reflections, and anxieties that laymen can share with us, who live their faith in the different realms of social and political life.
Your sincere dialogue in this Meeting is very important. Speak freely. It must be a dialogue that is between Catholics, Prelates and politicians, in which communion between persons of the same faith is more determinant than the legitimate oppositions of political options. For some reason and for something we take part in the Eucharist, source, and summit of all communion. From your dialogue illuminating factors can be drawn, orienting factors for the Church’s mission at present. Thank you again and good work!
source: ZENIT, Pope: Politics is a Service

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Francis leaves the Vatican shetl to go on his pre-Purim retreat at the Arriccia synagogue

We often lament having to post day after day about Talmudic Judaism and its connection to the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo church.  We admit that it becomes tiring, however we feel the need to post about it once again.  The most virulent form of Talmudic Judaism is Hasidism and one of Hasidism’s worst branches are the Chabad-Lubavitchers.  They have captured the ears of the leaders of the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Israel, and the Holy See.

Francis is on his Lenten retreat this week in Arricca.  Yesterday, Fr. Giulio Michelini, OFM gave two spiritual meditations on “Jesus’ last words at the beginning of His Passion” in the Gospel According to Saint Matthew.  So far so good, right? Here’s what Zenit reported:

Quoting Rabbi Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760), considered the founder of modern Hassidism, he noted that the words that come out of the mouth of masters, or of those who pray without having a heart turned to heaven do not rise, but fill the house from one wall to the other and from the floor to the ceiling.” 
Jesus, continued the preacher, was silent before those who accused him of being a blasphemer and wanted to destroy Him. It was a silence broken by the cry with which Jesus ended His earthly life and by the thrust of the lance. 
However, the Franciscan observed, there are different forms of silence: the silence of rancor that ponders vengeance, or the silence of one, as Elie Wiesel said, who ”never helps the victims.”

Why on a Lenten retreat during as spiritual meditation is Michelini quoting someone who practiced the Lurianic Kabbalah, believed that “to conceive a child on Christmas Eve will result in the birth of either an apostate or a pimp (Sefer Baal Shem Tov Vol. 2:43a)”, told his followers that his son’s conception and birth were miracles as he hadn’t been with his wife for fourteen years, etc...?  Then to follow it up with a quote from Elie Wiesel, the Hasidic high priest of holocaustianity himself?  To quote two men who denied the divinity of Christ and did everything in their power to destroy Christianity!  What frauds Francis and his ilk are!

It only gets worse as Michelini like the rabbis and Talmudists he so greatly admires twists the word of God to mean something other than what the Church has always taught:

Father Michelini then evoked the different personages that appear in this passage of Matthew: Caiaphas, the chief priests and the elders of the people, who decided to arrest Jesus, but not during the feast to avoid a revolt. He immediately observed that in no case is it about stigmatizing the Jews because this attitude concerns a religious hierarchy that can represent all sorts of religious institutions: it is an attitude that loses the right perspective believing that it serves God. It is the confrontation between two logics: on one side there is Jesus, a practicing Jew but a “layman” who is preparing to celebrate the Passover, and on the other the great priests who are preparing to kill an innocent, who are concerned with the feast in the sense of its exterior unfolding.

See dear reader, according to Michelini the Jews who condemned Christ are innocent, instead it’s an analogy to the religious hierarchy in all sorts of religious institutions, you know those whom Francis refers to as obsessed with ‘small-minded rules’ and “rigidity”.  What a load of bunk!  Michelini quotes two who deny Jesus — as the Christ, as the Son of God, as the second person of the Trinity — who are spiritual descendants of Caiaphas, the chief priests, and the elders of the people who condemned Jesus the Christ to death, in order to explain Our Lord’s passion in the Gospel of St. Matthew!  Then Michelini has the audacity to exculpate Caiaphas and company for Our Lord’s death!  What chutzpah!



“And the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death: And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in. And last of all there came two false witnesses: And they said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to rebuild it. And the high priest rising up, said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priests rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy: What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him: and others struck his face with the palms of their hands, Saying: Prophesy unto us, O Christ, who is he that struck thee?”

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

The SSPX—Vatican Carousel


Will the ride ever end?


Msgr. Alfonso de Galarreta

“I think, and this is the other aspect of things, that this pope who tells anyone who will listen that we are Catholic, who says and repeats that the Society is Catholic, that we are Catholic, will never condemn us, and that he wants our ‘case’ taken care of. I think– and he has already started down this path – that when he sees that we cannot agree with the Congregation of the Faith, I think that he will overreach any doctrinal, theoretical, practical condition, or any condition whatsoever… He is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society. He has already begun; he is simply going to continue. And I am not saying what I desire but what I foresee. I foresee, I think that the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition of the Society, and that by acts rather than by a legal or canonical approach.”

The same day that DICI released highlights from the conference of Bp. de Galarreta, ZENIT coincidently publishes a lengthy interview with the Secretary to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Abp. Guido Pozzo.


Abp. Guido Pozzo

Extracts of Archbishop Pozzo's interview, given to Luca Marcolivio and published in Zenit, A che punto è il dialogo con i lefebvriani?

About the status of the Society of St. Pius X
The SSPX is still in an irregular position, because it has not received canonical recognition by the Holy See. As long as the Society has no canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise in a legitimate way the ministry and the celebration of the sacraments. According to the formula endeavored by the then Cardinal Bergoglio in Buenos Aires and confirmed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the members of the SSPX are Catholics on the path toward full communion with the Holy See. This full communion will come when there is a canonical recognition of the Society.

What steps has the Holy See taken?
Following the lifting of the excommunications in 2009, a series of meetings were initiated between doctrinal experts appointed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, after the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, Unitatem Ecclesiae (2009), and experts of the SSPX to discuss and exchange views on major doctrinal issues underlying the dispute with the Holy See: the relationship between Tradition and the Magisterium, the questions of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, religious freedom, and of the liturgical reform, in the context of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

We are now at a stage that I believe constructive and oriented to achieve the desired reconciliation. The gesture of Pope Francis to grant to faithful Catholics the opportunity of receiving validly and lawfully the sacraments of reconciliation and anointing of the sick by the bishops and priests of the SSPX during the Holy Year of Mercy is clearly a sign of the will of the Holy Father to favor the path towards a full and stable canonical recognition.

What obstacles remain?
I would distinguish two levels. The proper doctrinal level concerns some differences about individual topics proposed by the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium relating to ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and the world religions, religious freedom, especially in the relationship between Church and State, and some aspects of liturgical reform. There is also the level of mental and psychological attitudes, which is to move from a position of polemical and antagonistic confrontation, to a position of listening and mutual respect, esteem and confidence, as it should be between members of the same Body of Christ, which is the Church. We need to work on both of these levels. I think the rapprochement undertaken has borne some fruit, especially for this change in attitude by both parties and it is worth pursuing that.

Even on the issue of the Second Vatican Council, I think that the SSPX must reflect on the distinction ...between the authentic mens of Vatican II, itsintentio docendi, as shown by the official Acts of the Council, and that I would call the "para-council", i.e., the set of theological guidelines and practical attitudes which accompanied the course of the Council itself, then pretending to cover themselves with its name, and that the public, thanks to the influence of the media, overlapped often as the true thought of the Council.

Also as regards the Lefebvrian criticism on religious freedom, at the bottom of the discussion it seems to me that the SSPX position is characterized by the defense of traditional Catholic doctrine against the agnostic secularism of the State and against secularism and ideological relativism but not against the right of the person not to be constricted or obstructed by the State in the exercise of the profession of religious faith. However, these are issues that will be a topic for discussion and clarification even after the full reconciliation.

What appears crucial is to find a full convergence on what is required to be in full communion with the Apostolic See, namely the integrity of the Catholic Creed, the bond of the sacraments and the acceptance of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium, which is not above the Word of God written and transmitted, but serves it, is the authentic interpreter also of previous texts of the Magisterium, including those of the Second Vatican Council, in the light of the perennial Tradition, which develops in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not with a novelty contrary (which would deny Catholic dogma), but with a better understanding of the Deposit of Faith, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and in the same judgment (in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu et eademque sententia, cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Dei Filius, 4). I believe that on these points the agreement with the SSPX is not only possible, but necessary.

I do not think that the SSPX has denied a doctrine of faith or the truth of the Catholic doctrine taught by the Magisterium. The criticisms concern instead statements or claims regarding the renewed pastoral care and ecumenical relations with other religions, and some issues of prudential order in the relationship between Church and society, Church and State. On liturgical reform, I will only mention a statement that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to Pope John Paul II in a letter dated March 8, 1980:
“About the Mass of the Novus Ordo, despite all the reservations that one has to do about it, I never claimed that it is invalid or heretical.”
Therefore the reservations about the rite of the Novus Ordo, which are obviously not to be underestimated, do not refer either to the validity of the celebration of the sacrament nor the line of the Catholic Faith. It would therefore be appropriate to continue the discussion and clarification of these reservations.

About the gesture of Pope Francis
The Holy Father encouraged the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from the start of his pontificate to pursue a less official and less formal [dialogue] with the SSPX. In this context, the soothing and magnanimous gesture of Pope Francis on the occasion of the Year of Mercy has undoubtedly helped to calm further the state of relations with the Society, showing that the Holy See has at heart the rapprochement and reconciliation which will also need a canonical form. I hope and wish that the SSPX shares the same feeling and the same will.

source: Where are we with the SSPX?—Abp. Pozzo
Abp. Pozzo's remarks were translated from Italian into English by the FSSPX


Fr. Marc Vernoy’s sermon


Then on 28 February 2016, Fr. Vernoy gave a sermon at St. Thomas More Chapel in Sanford, Florida in which he expounds on Bp. Fellay and the SSPX’s talks with Francis and the Vatican.  This sermon was pulled down from youtube shortly after it was posted. The blog Non Possumus had a copy of it and posted the relevant excerpt pertaining to the matter.


Excerpt from the 3rd Sunday of Lent Sermon of Fr. Marc Vernoy




Excerpt transcribed by Call Me Jorge...

“A few words or so because most of you have heard about uh what uh Bp. uhh de Galarreta told regarding uh the possible recognition of the Society, which has never been validly suppressed.
Uh, the priests of the Society since December 8th  receive before we were using the extraordinary jurisdiction for the confession.  Since December 8th we received the faculty directly from the Holy Father. It is the only case in the Church.  Uh, usually you go  through some congregations, some dioceses, etcertera.  All the priests of the Society received their powers directly from the pope.  That is pretty strong. [chuckles] It was already strong but uh. And uh it is very possible -we had conferences with Bp. Fellay in uh January about this topic uhh that the Pope will regularize the Society as it is, with uh lots of guarantees and without asking us anything.

Uh, it's part of the things that you can not explain, there are many things we cannot explain about the history of the Society since its beginnings in this crisis of the Church. Then uh, uh you, we can easily see the finger of God in many ways, in many ways.

After uh some will uh be very suspicious we have to be providential for sure but I tell you that our superiors are very prudent to protect our works to protect our priests, and whatever uh could happen.

Uh, if ever it happens, uh in the history of the Church it will be something absolutely special: we will be a congregation directly uh, uh receiving their powers directly from the Pope and uh, uh having uh a very, very special jurisdiction all over the world. It is something uh that only the Apostles had in the history of the Church.  And continue to pray. Uh, we are in time when special things are happening.

Big catastrophes, this is what we are witnessing with uh all these crisis not only in the Church, in the whole Society its just a catastrophe.  But God is there. If you hear you know why. And you know that all of you, if you hear it is also because of some miracles. Not only you, because God is behind you, the grace of God is after you. And God blessed you here, and that is why we call we must continue to have confidence. If you have no confidence we have nothing to do here.  Its because you don't believe in the grace of God.

We are not idiots, we have to keep prudence, but when grace of God is there, the finger of God is there you just have to acknowledge that's all. Just acknowledge it. And if the Pope wants you, you cannot say no. You can not say no.

This is exactly what we are asking from the beginning, to be able to live the tradition, this is the the request, your request, the request of the Society, the request of Abp. Lefebvre: to be able to freely live the traditional(?) Catholic tradition.

And if we offered that, how could we say no? It is not Catholic, absolutely not Catholic. There, there is an authority, they can think whatever about this practical authority, but it is there, and to deny formally the authority puts yourself in the state of mortal sin.”

Related: 

Friday, March 20, 2015

Francis on the death penalty

Why is Francis so fond of quoting the anti-Catholic, Fyodor Dostoevsky, 



Francis' letter to Federico Mayor, the President of the 
International Commission Against the Death Penalty



English translation of the two above paragraphs 
of the letter courtesy of Zenit

contra...




On the Fifth Commandment
Catechism of the Council of Trent



Catechism of Pope St. Pius X



Pius XII as quoted in Iota Unam, 
Chapter XXVI - The Death Penalty,  Section 190,  pp.435-36






 


English translation of Francis' letter to Federico Mayor


Your Excellency Mister
Federico Mayor
President of the International Commission against the Death Penalty
Mr. President:
With these letters, I wish to have my greeting reach all the members of the International Commission against the Death Penalty, to the group of countries that support it, and to those who collaborate with the organism over which you preside. I wish, in addition, to express my personal gratitude, and also that of men of good will, for your commitment to a world free of the death penalty and for your contribution to the establishment of a universal moratorium of executions worldwide, with a view to abolition of capital punishment.
I have shared some ideas on this subject in my letter to the International Association of Criminal Law and the Latin American Association of Criminal Law and Criminology, of May 30, 2014. I had the opportunity to reflect further on them in my allocution before the five great world associations dedicated to the study of criminal law, criminology, victimology and penitentiary questions of October 23, 2014. On this opportunity, I wish to share with you some reflections with which the Church can contribute to the Commission’s humanist efforts.
The Magisterium of the Church, beginning with Sacred Scripture and the centuries-old experience of the People of God, defends life from conception until natural death, and supports full human dignity in as much as image of God (Cf. Genesis 1:26). Human life is sacred because from its beginning, from the first instant of conception, it is fruit of the creative action of God (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2258), and from that moment, man, the only creature God loves for itself, is the object of personal love on the part of God (Cf. Gaudium et spes, 24).
States can kill by action when they apply the death penalty, when they take their peoples to war or when they carry out extra-judicial or summary executions. They can also kill by omission, when they do not guarantee to their peoples access to the essential means for life. “Just as the Commandment ‘do not kill’ puts a clear limit to ensure the value of human life, today we have to say ‘no to an economy of exclusion and inequality’” (Evangelii gaudium,53).
Life, especially human life, belongs to God alone. Not even the murderer loses his personal dignity and God himself makes himself its guarantor. As Saint Ambrose teaches, God did not want to punish Cain for the murder, as He wants the repentance of the sinner, not his death (Cf. Evangelium vitae, 9).
On some occasions it is necessary to repel proportionally an aggression underway to avoid an aggressor causing harm, and the necessity to neutralize him might entail his elimination: it is the case of legitimate defense (Cf. Evangelium vitae, 55). However, the assumptions of legitimate personal defense are not applicable to the social milieu, without risk of distortion. Because when the death penalty is applied, persons are killed not for present aggressions, but for harm caused in the past. Moreover, it is applied to persons whose capacity to harm is not present but has already been neutralized, and who find themselves deprived of their freedom.
Today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime of the condemned. It is an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person that contradicts God’s plan for man and society and His merciful justice, and it impedes fulfilling the just end of the punishments. It does no do justice to the victims, but foments vengeance.
For a State of Law, the death penalty represents a failure, because it obliges it to kill in the name of justice. Dostoevsky wrote: “To kill one who killed is an incomparably greater punishment than the crime itself. Killing in virtue of a sentence is far worse than the killing committed by a criminal.” Justice will never be reached by killing a human being.
The death penalty loses all legitimacy given the defective selectivity of the criminal system and in face of the possibility of judicial error. Human justice is imperfect, and not to recognize its fallibility can turn it into a source of injustices. With the application of capital punishment the condemned is denied the possibility of reparation or amendment of the harm caused; the possibility of Confession, by which man expresses his interior conversion; and contrition, gateway of repentance and of expiation, to comer to the encounter of the merciful and healing love of God.
Moreover, capital punishment is a frequent recourse used by some totalitarian regimes and fanatical groups, for the extermination of political dissidents, of minorities, and of any individual labelled “dangerous” or who can be perceived as a threat to one’s power or to carry out one’s ends. As in the first centuries, today also the Church suffers the application of this punishment to her new martyrs.
The death penalty is contrary to the meaning of humanitas and to divine mercy, which should be the model for men’s justice. It implies cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as is also the prior anguish to the moment of execution and the terrible waiting between the dictating of the sentence and the application of the punishment, it usually lasts many years, and, in the waiting-room of death, not rarely leads to sickness and madness.
In some places there are debates about the way to kill, as if there were a way to “do it well.” In the course of history, different mechanisms of death have been defended to reduce the suffering and agony of the condemned. However, there is no human way of killing another person.
At present, not only are there means to repress crime effectively, without depriving definitively the possibility of the one who has committed it from redeeming himself (Cf.Evangelium vitae, 27), but a greater moral sensibility has been developed in relation to the value of human life, causing increasing aversion to the death penalty and the support of public opinion to the different dispositions that tend to its abolition or the postponement of its application(Cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, n. 405).
On the other hand, the punishment of life imprisonment, as well as those that because of their duration entail the possibility for the one punished to plan a future in freedom, can be considered veiled death penalties, because with them the culprit is not deprived of freedom but there is an attempt to deprive him of hope. However, although the criminal system can take away time from the culprits, it can never take away their hope.
As I expressed in my allocution of last October 23, “the death penalty implies the denial of love to enemies, preached in the Gospel. All Christians and all men of good will are obliged not only to fight for the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also for prison conditions to be better, in respect of the human dignity of the persons deprived of freedom.”
Dear friends, I encourage you to continue with the work you do, as the world needs witnesses of the mercy and tenderness of God.
I take my leave entrusting you to the Lord Jesus, who in the days of his earthly life did not want his persecutors to be wounded in his defense – “Put your sword back into its place” (Matthew 26:52) --, he was arrested and condemned to death unjustly, and He identified himself with all prisoners, culpable or not: “I was in prison and you came to me” (Matthew25:36). May He, who before the adulterous woman did not question her culpability, but invited her accusers to examine their own consciences before stoning her (Cf. John 8:1-11), grant you the gift of wisdom, so that the actions you undertake in favour of abolition of this cruel punishment, are right and fruitful.
I beg you to pray for me.
Cordially,
Vatican, March 20, 2015
FRANCIS